I’ll grant you that’s likely to be true for all forms of government informed by liberalism, but that’s because charters tend to be written by landowners (and in the US, slave owners), so we have a long run of people creating governments contrived to let its framers keep their property and political power.
But I suspect within political theory, there exist forms of liberalism in which the human rights of individuals outweigh the right to property, especially large scale ownership. In fact, economic theory has long observed that the extreme consolidation of wealth is corrosive to economic systems, to government, to the rule of law, and to society. Combined with the historic trend of wealth to consolidate upwards and eventually capture political power (discussed by Marx in Das Kapital), this means any such system will only be quasi-stable, ultimately leading to corruption of the government and collapse of the economy. It’s also the point of the game Monopoly.
According to Wikipedia regarding property rights, Controversy [centers] upon who is deemed to have property rights protected (e.g. human beings or also corporations), the type of property which is protected (property used for the purpose of consumption or production) and the reasons for which property can be restricted (for instance, for regulations, taxation or [nationalization] in the public interest).
Curiously, there is a stark contrast between the right to own possessions, and a right to own large-scale real-estate and capital (id est, the means of production) and it may be in the best interest of society to heavily restrict or even abolish the latter.
But as we’ve seen in the case of the USSR, we’d have to do that worldwide, as there will always be Wilsons out there eager to rollback such a government towards capitalism again, or create a doctrine of containment (Wilson called it quarantine ) and force a trade embargo. So long as there are plutocrats there will be militaries looking to conquer and annex. (Heck, right now, our current plutocratic class is looking to create robotic military forces that can be controlled by AI.)
Huh. It reminds me of the international response to the 1789 French revolution, which was to demand of France that they select and erect a new monarch, since a republic or a democracy that worked might incite revolts in their own kingdoms.
I’ll grant you that’s likely to be true for all forms of government informed by liberalism, but that’s because charters tend to be written by landowners (and in the US, slave owners), so we have a long run of people creating governments contrived to let its framers keep their property and political power.
But I suspect within political theory, there exist forms of liberalism in which the human rights of individuals outweigh the right to property, especially large scale ownership. In fact, economic theory has long observed that the extreme consolidation of wealth is corrosive to economic systems, to government, to the rule of law, and to society. Combined with the historic trend of wealth to consolidate upwards and eventually capture political power (discussed by Marx in Das Kapital), this means any such system will only be quasi-stable, ultimately leading to corruption of the government and collapse of the economy. It’s also the point of the game Monopoly.
According to Wikipedia regarding property rights, Controversy [centers] upon who is deemed to have property rights protected (e.g. human beings or also corporations), the type of property which is protected (property used for the purpose of consumption or production) and the reasons for which property can be restricted (for instance, for regulations, taxation or [nationalization] in the public interest).
Curiously, there is a stark contrast between the right to own possessions, and a right to own large-scale real-estate and capital (id est, the means of production) and it may be in the best interest of society to heavily restrict or even abolish the latter.
But as we’ve seen in the case of the USSR, we’d have to do that worldwide, as there will always be Wilsons out there eager to rollback such a government towards capitalism again, or create a doctrine of containment (Wilson called it quarantine ) and force a trade embargo. So long as there are plutocrats there will be militaries looking to conquer and annex. (Heck, right now, our current plutocratic class is looking to create robotic military forces that can be controlled by AI.)
Huh. It reminds me of the international response to the 1789 French revolution, which was to demand of France that they select and erect a new monarch, since a republic or a democracy that worked might incite revolts in their own kingdoms.
Gotta give you props for knowing about the Siberian War, not a whole lot of people do.